Where do the Members of SDF stand on the issue of the War in the Ukraine?

Where do you stand on the War in the Ukraine

  • Total voters


Registered Member
Finland decided on this course way back in 2008 at the very least. And you can bet a conflict between NATO and Russia will happen. Except this time I doubt Russia will let Finland escape with its own sovereignty and major population centers intact. They already let them out twice way back in Soviet times.


Registered Member
Don't think those tsars treated their new territory very well. Once they got their independence, all wanted it to stay independent. No one wants to be exploited.

If you think about it, Russia is the only European country that kept their imperial spoils during the age of colonization (Siberia and far east). It just happens their expansions are into fairly empty territories in the far north where there is low population and is physically attached to Russia proper (European part). The English, French, Spanish and Portuguese all lost their colonies because they are across oceans.
The silly part is these places assume that by defeating Russia in Ukraine is somehow going to make the Russian pay for all the damages but as everyone knows, there is no chance this will happen. At the end, if these leaders end up destroying their own nations by increasing inflation and shortages to life destroying levels, I highly doubt that anyone in Europe is going to be happy with the current leaders any longer. These leaders in Europe, especially Ursula, stotenburg and Olaf Sholz are on borrowed time and the silly part is that Putin didn’t need to lift a finger to do most of the damage.


Registered Member
I am still waiting for the list of sanctioned entities which the Russian government is supposed to present to Putin next Friday.
Thus far Russia hasn't made much in the way of sanctions, unless you consider the gas for rubles a sanction, well I don't.

The thing which was closest to sanctions was Russia stopping exports of certain food products until late this year.
But they did it because speculators were basically buying up all the food in Russia to resell at huge profit.

More of a defensive move than a sanction. Same as the gas for rubles. The actual sanctioned entities which might be announced starting next Friday, well, that might be more interesting.


Senior Member
That is only TODAY, not after Finland formally joining NATO.

Finland as of today is not a threat to Russia even if it uses F-18. Finland after joining NATO will be a front line threat to Russia. Being official member of NATO obliges Finland to attack Russia if any conflict happens between Russia and another NATO member. Finland as of today does not have to do so even if it has close relationship with NATO.

Officially joining NATO does not necessarily prevent Russia attacking Finland if Russia felt a serious chance of conflict. Remember 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war, China invaded Vietnam after Vietnam signed a friendship and cooperation treaty with USSR in October 1978. At the time, the treaty's detailed texts were not published, so nobody knows if the treaty obliged USSR to militarily assist Vietnam in case of such war. China invaded Vietnam anyway. Why? 1. test the true nature of the treaty. 2. Call the USSR's bluff. This can happen to Finland too. Any ways, it was the Vietnamese paid the high cost. It is certainly Finland going to pay the cost if history repeats itself.

It is a extremely stupid move by the Finnish politician (and Swedish as well) to acquire more security by increasing the risk of loosing security. It is like gambling in a volatile stock market with one's whole pension saving.

Looking at whats going on in Ukraine and the fact that Russia has all but emptied it's garrisons near Finland (those units have suffered severe losses) as a Finn i'm not too worried about Russian behavior. Russians have also been far less hostile with messaging after real state of their military was revealed.


Registered Member
Looking at whats going on in Ukraine and the fact that Russia has all but emptied it's garrisons near Finland (those units have suffered severe losses) as a Finn i'm not too worried about Russian behavior. Russians have also been far less hostile with messaging after real state of their military was revealed.
Security is never determined by one side feeling absolute secure. It has to be for both sides to feel secure. Once Finland joined NATO Russia will feel real threat even though Finns don't care. Today's Russia is like USSR in 1939 after seeing the white faction defeated the red faction in Finnish civil war, isn't it? Russia has demonstrated its weakness in Ukraine, just like its bad performance in the winter war. That bad performance emboldened Hitler to invade USSR in WWII which led to Germany's total destruction in 1945. And Finland escaped Soviet occupation only because Finnish leadership chose not to join Germany in reclaiming land losses in the winter war. It was very wise of the Finnish leadership after winter war not joining Germany in WWII. Today's Finnish leadership is quite the opposite.

My point is that it is not enough for you to feel safe with NATO, neither does a setback of your enemy makes you any safer in the future. The mistrust and building of hostility today is something that maybe not you but your future generation must worry about. So the question is why does today's Finnish leadership and population behind them make this choice that IMO is unnecessary, of course unless you want to reclaim the lost territory in 1940. I can only speculate that today's Finns think this is the end of history, Russia has no chance to come back at you like the USSR in 1930s and 1940s. I won't bet on that. A country as large as China has experienced so many up and down circles, at some point total collapse, we only survived to this day because we are huge in size and population, most countries won't have a second chance.


Junior Member
Registered Member
Can't say I support Russia's actions here, the methods of arming/agitating separatists to create a pretext for political interference, denial of sovereignty, accusation of genocide (a term that's growing more and more meaningless by the day) and military invasion. I kind of understand why Russia do it, the Anglo Cartel normalized and perfected this method of progressive gaslighting and used it against Russia's allies countless times and Russia felt justified in doing the same.

What really bothers me surrounding this conflict is the massive amount of bizarre orientalist articles/essays pumped out by pseudo philosophers/Historians on how modern Russian behaviors is actually caused by/ or a continuation of the Mongols, Ivan the Terrible, Ivan Illyin or whoever as if Russia is the only country with such historical figures. This is like talking about how George Washington burnt down and raped Native American villages to explain American foreign policy.

What even is there to explain? The west convinced the USSR to destroy itself promising to drop pies from the sky if they adopt Neo/liberalism, it made almost everyone's lives considerably worse in exchange for nothing. Russia realized that it has being destroyed by the west without firing a single shot and now leans hard into revanchism. I think the only explanation is to completely omit the fact that most of Russia's action are just reactions to the west and sought to lay all responsibility on deep-seated Russian "National Character".

And of course, the endless equating of each other of being "LITERALLY NAZZZIIIS!"(reductio ad hitlerum has being around for 60 years). Putin is being GW Bush at worst.